Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

Getting a bit too wonky even for myself here. So I'll hope the BRAD BLOG readers will tolerate this bit of wonkery for the moment. I believe it's important.

In case you're not familiar, an anonymous career CIA analyst/foreign policy expert, having served decades, and still employeed by the agency as I understand it, is releasing a book in a few weeks which is highly critical of the Bush Administration's "War on Terror".

In Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror the author, Anonymous, goes into a much detailed account of where we went wrong, and what few options we now may be left with.

For those who would (as those who inevitably will, for partisan reasons) see this as just another Bush Bash Fest, it would be a mistake to do so, since Anonymous' prescription for what to do now, is decidely "un-Liberal". Essentially, he calls for Total War. But for an explanation of that actually means --- and how it differs from what is being waged now --- you'll need to read Spencer Ackerman's full article (over on Talking Points Memo where he's currently filling in for the vacationing Josh Marshall).

For the moment, what caught my eye was a useful and sobering post-mortem on where things now stand in both Afghanistan and Iraq:

[Anonymous] sees our intervention in Afghanistan as a disaster. While not as strident, a host of mostly liberal critics generally agree, arguing that the Bush administration has allowed Afghanistan to slip back into warlord-dominated instability. The prescription this critique implies is a vigorous nation-building effort. Anonymous rejects this entirely. Expanding Hamid Karzai's writ across the country is a recipe for violence, he writes: "After twenty years of war and ineffective or alien government in Kabul, the regions, subregions and tribes have never been more autonomously minded and jealous of their prerogatives." Democratization in Afghanistan, he believes, is a mirage. "We focus on issues that don't matter to Afghans--women's rights, democracy--and we denigrate those things that matter to Afghans--Islam, tribal and clan relationships, ethnic pecking orders," he says. Sometime soon, "you're going to have a government back in Kabul that looks like the Taliban, perhaps under a different name." The proper purpose of the 2001 war, he believes, was to use U.S. forces to annihilate the Qaeda presence in the country and do no more. With our inability to do that, our garrisoning of troops in Afghanistan and support of a weak central government of ethnic minorities provides little aside from an Islamist rallying cry against U.S. occupation--what he terms "an unmitigated defeat."[emphasis added]

Then there's Iraq. "[T]here is nothing bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq," he writes.

All Muslims would see each day on television that the United States was occupying a Muslim country, insisting that man-made laws replace God's revealed word, stealing Iraq's oil, and paving the way for the creation of a "Greater Israel." The clerics and scholars would call for a defensive jihad against the United States, young Muslim males would rush from across the Islamic world to fight U.S. troops, and there--in Islam's second holiest land--would erupt a second Afghanistan, a self-perpetuating holy war that would endure whether or not al-Qaeda survived.

The reason we've made these mistakes, he argues, is that we fail to understand that bin Laden doesn't hate us because of our freedom. Or, rather, while he does hate the licentiousness and modernity that the U.S. represents, it's not what compels him to declare war on us. Nor does an anti-modernist bent explain bin Laden's appeal across the Muslim world. Instead, it's what Anonymous identifies as six points bin Laden repeatedly cites in his communiqués: "U.S. support for Israel that keeps the Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall; U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula; U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; U.S. support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants; U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low; U.S. support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments." Combined with his charismatic biography, bin Laden's strategic success has been to frame these arguments through a Koranic prism, "to convince everyone that U.S. policy is deliberately anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic," he says. Bin Laden's critique presents in resonant Islamic terminology a coherent jihadist explanation for practically everything Muslims can find offensive about the U.S.--the most deadly slippery slope there is. And the more Americans insist on treating bin Laden's anger with the U.S. as a pure hatred of freedom, the less equipped we'll be to answer him in a battle of ideas.[emphasis added]

I realize these arguments may be a bit more nuanced and informed than is easily fit onto Headline News, Larry King's brain, or the general limited scope of a Fake Conservative's knee-jerk ideological pallette.

The battle of "Good vs. Evil" is much easier to get across to the Nascar Dad Joe-Sixpacks on whom Dubya's re-election chances now hinge.

None the less, until the United States cares to take a real, sobering, and --- yes --- nuanced look at what this "War" is really about, we're destined to simply keep spinning our wheels in a never-ending, ever-increasing bloody battle that simply cannot be "won".

So, the "War on Terror" was supposed to be a new kind of war. So why is our administration fighting the old kinds of wars? And in Iraq, the same old war. (And given that bin Laden wanted Saddam's secular government toppled, it could be argued that Bush is bin Laden's lackey.)

Here's what could easily have happened after September 11, 2001, when almost all the world held the U.S. to it's heart and looked to us for leadership: An aggressive, high powered international military squad, completely under the command of the U.S., while internationally supplied and funded, could have been created to root out and attack terrorists wherever they were in the world. Brief attacks, one or two days at the most, directly atttacking terrorist camps.

It would have meant using intelligence wisely. But at the time, we were in a good position to enlist the aid of Islamic countries for the kind of on-the-ground intelligence work at which we have failed.

Many countries might have been grateful to have their dangerous elements rooted out, and those who weren't would have been flying in the face of almost the entire world.

Terrorists would have been constantly on the run, destabilized, and would find fewer shelters.

Yes, there would have been some abuses, and some mistakes killing civilians. But the body count and expense would have been less than we have seen and the results would have been more positive.

"U.S. support for Israel that keeps the Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall" [the hated enemy]

"U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula" [Holy lands]

I have never thought they hated us because of FREEDOM. They hate us because we support Israel [it's that simple], who they really hate. As long as there are Jews or the existence of Israel, there will always be war or terrorism.

And frankly, that's the only sentence in your comment that scares the crap outta me. Not that "Christians know how it all finally ends", because as with every cult, there are always absurdist end-of-the-world scenarios.

What terrifies me about it, is that we actually have folks now in office who believe in this tinfoil hat crap and who --- in fact --- base their actual foreign policies on such absurdist cult-like fantasy! Amazing...See this entry on "Who Would Jesus Vote For?" for more details on the Jesus Freaks running this country (into the ground).

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. " Voltaire

"All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it."
- "The Private History of the Campaign That Failed"

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." "Chronicle of Young Satan" Mark Twain

It's all about active citizenship, in my opinion. It's up to Us to be aware, keep informed, and most importantly.. Vote. "Gorvernment of the people, for the people, By the people". I guess that I'm really only amazed at how many people Aren't questioning why we are over there now. You would think too that after the Vietnam protests, we would have learned Something, yet there is still that sentiment running through society that you can not be a good, patriotic citizen if you don't support a war or warlike movement being made by your country. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone can support and sympathize with the men and women of our armed forces Without agreeing with the choices and actions of the people in power who put the armed forces where they are.

Then again, it is we, the citizens, who put those people in power. "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw I don't feel that our government has failed us. I feel as though we have failed ourselves somewhere down the line. I'm an eternal optimist though lol, and I do what I can to get people talking and thinking. Two of my all-time favorite quotes that I try to keep in mind throughout life...

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire and...

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway." Eleanor Roosevelt

As to your thought:
"I guess that I'm really only amazed at how many people Aren't questioning why we are over there now."

I think one of the biggest reasons for that is the lack of a Draft (unlike during Vietnam). I'd wager that if we had a draft now (as we may soon out of necessessity anyway) you'd hear *alot* more about *alot* of these types of actions.

For the most part, however, Americans are lazy and only tend to worry about what effects them *directly*.

We've not been asked to sacrifice in *any* way for this unnecessary war. So other than an occassional small item on TV, the war - to most Americans - likely means absolutely nothing.

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about that and pretty much reached the same conclusion. Although, I'd say that many average Americans view it all as more of an 'annoyance' than the absolute zero of 'nothing'. Also sad, but something is better than nothing at all and it Is something to build off of, eh?